replacing old ellipsis point spaces

regexConsp/jfk-echo.xml

@@ -63,8 +63,8 @@ Lines: 626</p>
 
 <p>------BEGIN PART 1/4---------------------------------------------------------</p>
 
-<p>ECHOES OF CONSPIRACY       February 28, 1986
-Vol. 8, #1        Paul L. Hoch</p>
+<p>ECHOES OF CONSPIRACY     February 28, 1986
+Vol. 8, #1      Paul L. Hoch</p>
 
 <p><special>"Reasonable Doubt":</special>
    Henry Hurt's book should be in your local bookstore now, although it did
@@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ other evidence that Oswald did not do it.
    The jealous husband and Rosetta "both deny any knowledge of Tippit's
 death other than what is in the official account."  (P. 168)  Hurt does not go
 into detail, but I doubt that he accepted Mr. Stone's denial at face value.
-8 EOC 1      -2-</p>
+8 EOC 1    -2-</p>
 
 <p>   Hurt does quote a retired DPD officer who "asserted flatly and without
 prompting that he believed Tippit was killed as a result of a volatile
@@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ Tippit messages.</p>
 <p><special>JFK's physician believes in a conspiracy:</special>
    There is a second very provocative piece of new evidence, resulting from
 Hurt's 1982 phone call to Adm. George Burkley.  He said "that he believed that
-8 EOC 1      -3-</p>
+8 EOC 1    -3-</p>
 
 <p>President Kennedy's assassination was the result of a conspiracy."  He
 subsequently refused "to discuss any aspect of the case."  (P. 49)
@@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ none surfaced after "Best Evidence" was published.
    Hurt's manuscript led me to check the record on the authorization of the
 autopsy.  Is it possible, I wonder, that the record significantly minimizes
 Jacqueline Kennedy's opposition to an autopsy?  If the opposition was very
-8 EOC 1      -4-</p>
+8 EOC 1    -4-</p>
 
 <p>strong or more prolonged than is generally assumed, I have no trouble
 believing that someone decided to go ahead with an "inspection" regardless.
@@ -307,7 +307,7 @@ relevance to Oswald's alleged presence there.  (See 3 EOC 7, pp. 3-5.)
    The book also includes quite a few interesting points which were
 completely new to me.  For example:
    A Naval Intelligence officer at the Moscow Embassy says he thought that
-8 EOC 1      -5-</p>
+8 EOC 1    -5-</p>
 
 <p>Oswald was being handled for the CIA by someone in the Naval Attache's office.
 (P. 243)
@@ -368,7 +368,7 @@ explains in the introduction.  (P. 7)  It must have colored his approach to
 the evidence he later encountered.  His personal experience in dealing with
 the FBI on this matter certainly contributed to his very negative evaluation
 of the official investigations of the JFK case.  That is, Hurt learned that
-8 EOC 1      -6-</p>
+8 EOC 1    -6-</p>
 
 <p>Easterling's was definitely not the best of the conspiracy allegations which
 were not taken seriously.
@@ -429,7 +429,7 @@ Easterling's story, by someone familiar with the kind of details on the JFK
 case which have been publicized, is a conspicuous deficiency in this chapter.
    As noted in my comments on Blakey's book, there may well be no signif-
 icance to a claim by Johnny Roselli that he "knew" there was a shot from the
-8 EOC 1      -7-</p>
+8 EOC 1    -7-</p>
 
 <p>grassy knoll.  (3 EOC 3, p. 3)  I have no trouble believing that Roselli or
 some member of his family (or Family) heard Mark Lane's lecture (if not
@@ -490,7 +490,7 @@ firing test (with coconuts!) and a test-firing scene at the beginning of
    Not surprisingly, the points which Hurt could even try to verify had
 little direct connection to the assassination.  Discovering (even with
 difficulty) that there was a fire like one Easterling described does nothing
-8 EOC 1      -8-</p>
+8 EOC 1    -8-</p>
 
 <p>to support his claim that he was picking up Oswald nearby.  The story of Igor
 Vaganov (Esquire, 8/67) is a useful reminder that there were many odd things
@@ -551,7 +551,7 @@ whilst two others claim to have heard of it."  Phillip Agee is among the five,
 all named.  (I'll pass up the opportunity to list unfamiliar people here.  Any
 reporter who wants to make a test case out of those CIA names is welcome to do
 so.  I hear that "The Lobster" is developing a reputation in the U.K. for
-8 EOC 1      -9-</p>
+8 EOC 1    -9-</p>
 
 <p>naming sensitive names.)
    A named CIA officer "is believed to have told an untruth to the HSCA"
@@ -612,7 +612,7 @@ complicity in this attempted discreditation is underscored by his having had
 the book published without ever troubling to learn that I have never even seen
 John Rosselli in my life..."
    The reference is to p. 498 of "Conspiracy," by Tony Summers (who is,
-8 EOC 1      -10-</p>
+8 EOC 1    -10-</p>
 
 <p>indeed, sort of dashing), which accurately asserts that the CIA found such a
 meeting "particularly disturbing."  Summers quotes (but does not cite) an HSCA
@@ -695,8 +695,8 @@ Lines: 617</p>
 
 <p>-----BEGIN PART 2/4-----------------------------------------------------------</p>
 
-<p>ECHOES OF CONSPIRACY       July 17, 1986
-Vol. 8, #2        Paul L. Hoch</p>
+<p>ECHOES OF CONSPIRACY     July 17, 1986
+Vol. 8, #2      Paul L. Hoch</p>
 
 <p><special>Quotation of the day:</special>
    "An interesting theory can always outrun a set of facts," according to
@@ -755,7 +755,7 @@ published information has now been deleted.
 March 4] did little to mollify critics...."  Schrade accused the police
 commissioners of "arrogance" and challenged Chief Gates to explain the
 trajectory of the bullet which struck him.
-8 EOC 2      -2-</p>
+8 EOC 2    -2-</p>
 
 <p>   20.  5 Mar  (SFX)  "RFK murder probe is 'a P.R. gesture,' victim
 complains"  [2 pp.]  Also quotes Prof. Melanson.
@@ -815,7 +815,7 @@ and I have no problem with the book leaving out the backyard photos, the
 umbrella man, and even the acoustics.  In any case, Mack's specifics do not
 establish his most serious criticism, that the book was "very carefully,
 cleverly constructed" to build a case that Castro did it, and to give the
-8 EOC 2      -3-</p>
+8 EOC 2    -3-</p>
 
 <p>impression that it completely covers the major open questions.  I didn't get
 that impression from the book; if the Justice Department or many reviewers
@@ -875,7 +875,7 @@ what it prints ranges from a bit overdone to quite silly indeed.)
 assassination theories"  [2 pp.]  A favorable review by Jonathan Marshall, now
 the Trib's editorial page editor, focusing on Burkley, Tippit, and suppression
 of evidence by federal agencies.  "Worst of all, however, was the decision of
-8 EOC 2      -4-</p>
+8 EOC 2    -4-</p>
 
 <p>the [HSCA] to put a 50-year seal on most of the thousands of pages of
 documents it assembled.  'The irony of the situation... is clear,' noted
@@ -935,7 +935,7 @@ transposed frames (both of which I accept as non-sinister mistakes).
 confession in Kennedy assassination"  [2 pp.]  Hurt, who used to work for the
 Jackson News, met with two FBI agents "who had examined Easterling's file.
 'The whole tone was, one of, "Listen, you're a fairly sensible fellow, how can
-8 EOC 2      -5-</p>
+8 EOC 2    -5-</p>
 
 <p>you get taken in by this man?"  And my position was I'm not being taken in by
 him.  I'm trying to find out the full story.  I don't understand why you folks
@@ -995,7 +995,7 @@ dead and unable to defend himself from that kind of off the wall canard.  No
 matter how virtuously Hoch might couch it, a smear is still a smear."
    I will let you decide if my reference (or Hurt's) was gratuitous.  Out
 here, referring to someone's homosexuality stopped being a canard years ago;
-8 EOC 2      -6-</p>
+8 EOC 2    -6-</p>
 
 <p>at least, it's not as serious as charging someone with conspiring to kill JFK.
    Does Garrison now think Shaw was involved in the conspiracy which led to
@@ -1055,7 +1055,7 @@ without seeming to defend certain indefensible aspects of the HSCA's work.
 (by the HSCA) or about Cuban exiles, one may be reluctant to be properly
 critical if one believes, as most of us do, that those areas probably are
 central, and that someone might well have come up with new and important
-8 EOC 2      -7-</p>
+8 EOC 2    -7-</p>
 
 <p>(but unverifiable) evidence.
    So I have no qualms about taking a close look at Garrison's charge that
@@ -1115,7 +1115,7 @@ attention one area in which the report was incomplete.  I believe that the
 published information may be unfair to one of the named individuals, Paulino
 Sierra Martinez.
    Mr. Sierra is mentioned on page 134 of the HSCA report, which states that
-8 EOC 2      -8-</p>
+8 EOC 2    -8-</p>
 
 <p>a certain "arms deal was being financed through one Paulino Sierra Martinez by
 hoodlum elements in Chicago and elsewhere."  A staff report on the organi-
@@ -1175,7 +1175,7 @@ not in fact gotten that approval, when Somoza's claims were repeated to him in
 a meeting in August 1963.
    Scott was able to obtain a memorandum concerning that meeting under the
 Freedom of Information Act....  (Memo by John H. Crimmins, Coordinator of
-8 EOC 2      -9-</p>
+8 EOC 2    -9-</p>
 
 <p>Cuban Affairs in the State Department, August 17, 1963)
    The man who repeated Somoza's claims was Paulino Sierra, who said that he
@@ -1235,7 +1235,7 @@ published HSCA material.
    In addition, any surviving principals should be allowed to respond to the
 HSCA's charge that the JGCE may have been a tool of organized crime.</p>
 
-<p>8 EOC 2      -10-</p>
+<p>8 EOC 2    -10-</p>
 
 <p>   69.  Excerpts from Schlesinger, "Robert Kennedy and his Times."
    70.  Crimmins memo, 17 Aug 63, 6 pp.
@@ -1318,8 +1318,8 @@ Lines: 613</p>
 
 <p>---BEGIN PART 3/4-------------------------------------------------------------</p>
 
-<p>ECHOES OF CONSPIRACY      October 31, 1986
-Vol. 8, #3        Paul L. Hoch</p>
+<p>ECHOES OF CONSPIRACY    October 31, 1986
+Vol. 8, #3      Paul L. Hoch</p>
 
 <p><special>The acoustical evidence:</special>
    One reason for questioning the authenticity of the DPD Dictabelt is the
@@ -1378,7 +1378,7 @@ you really should get the originals back."
 this; my letters to Justice are not even routinely acknowledged these days.
 As far as I know, the JD has neither finished nor abandoned its long-overdue
 review of the HSCA report.
-8 EOC 3      -2-</p>
+8 EOC 3    -2-</p>
 
 <p><special>London Weekend Television program:</special>
    73.  31 Jul 86  (NY Post)  "23 year[s] later, Oswald goes on trial"
@@ -1438,7 +1438,7 @@ fees, but to demonstrate a substantial degree of public support when
 approaching private foundations - the few which are willing to become involved
 with such a controversial topic.  Institutional memberships would be
 particularly appreciated.
-8 EOC 3      -3-</p>
+8 EOC 3    -3-</p>
 
 <p>   Item #80 also includes a progress report, dated August 1.  Among other
 things, Jeff Meek's massive index of (mostly) published JFK material has been
@@ -1497,7 +1497,7 @@ on the number of requests received by January 1, 1987.)</p>
 
 <p><special>A break from clippings (for the rest of this issue, at least):</special>
    Current clippings are generally less interesting than, e.g., old
-8 EOC 3      -4-</p>
+8 EOC 3    -4-</p>
 
 <p>clippings and the HSCA volumes.  What are people interested in reading about
 in EOC, or getting copies of?  (My Garrison analysis [#1986.68] generated just
@@ -1557,7 +1557,7 @@ in Dallas" to John McCloy, urging him to do the right thing [#89, 5 pp.];
 McCloy's draft response, saying that he was not impressed [#90, 16 Jul 69,
 3 pp.], and an exchange of letters between McCloy and Warren [#91, 3 pp.], in
 which Warren agreed with McCloy but suggested that he not send the letter.
-8 EOC 3      -5-</p>
+8 EOC 3    -5-</p>
 
 <p><special>CIA interest in identifying the Mexico Mystery Man:</special>
    Last November, the CIA released eleven documents to Bud Fensterwald in
@@ -1617,7 +1617,7 @@ probe.  I assume it was not done to absolve Castro.  Why was it done, at least
 in part, "unofficially," and by someone who took the Saul story seriously?
 What else did she and her colleagues believe?  Can anyone tell us more about
 this in-depth CIA study?  I guess it was related to the Task Force Report
-8 EOC 3      -6-</p>
+8 EOC 3    -6-</p>
 
 <p>prepared in response to the Schweiker Report.  (HSCAR 108, 10 HSCA 156)
    The memos, as released, do not say much about possible Cuban involvement.
@@ -1675,7 +1675,7 @@ in Russia.  I wonder, however, if Raikin might have had an interest in
 portraying Oswald as an agent of the State Department, rather than (say) as a
 loner, or as an agent of another intelligence agency?  (Just speculating.)
 .CP 6
-8 EOC 3      -7-</p>
+8 EOC 3    -7-</p>
 
 <p><special>Book news:</special>
    Kitty Kelley's new book on Frank Sinatra ("His Way," Bantam, $21.95) is
@@ -1735,7 +1735,7 @@ knowledge of until May 1962, at which time they ordered them stopped."  Who on
 the WC besides Dulles?  (See Moldea, pp. 234-5, 338-9; #104 [2 pp.])
    I have also read "Alias Oswald," by W. R. Morris and R. B. Cutler, and
 "JFK:  The Mystery Unraveled," from the Liberty Lobby's "Spotlight."
-8 EOC 3      -8-</p>
+8 EOC 3    -8-</p>
 
 <p>(#105: ad from "Spotlight" for the book [107 pages for $6.95]; see #1985.102
 for one chapter.)  I would prefer not to have to say more about these books,
@@ -1795,7 +1795,7 @@ you may never want to fly again.
 Intelligence.  He is not as peculiar as Angleton, but almost as heavy.  The
 book, however, does not speculate on the possible importance of the split
 represented by someone of his rank going public with his dissent.
-8 EOC 3      -9-</p>
+8 EOC 3    -9-</p>
 
 <p>   One parallel drawn by "Time" and others is basically misleading - the
 allegedly nonconspiratorial nature of Hersh's "innocent" explanation.  Indeed,
@@ -1855,7 +1855,7 @@ intelligence officer" to give Hersh his "first account" of the abuse of COMINT
 in this case "late in 1984."  [P. xi]  Did the people in the intelligence
 community who knew the story wait until the 1984 elections were out of the way
 before spilling the beans?  As with Watergate and Epstein's "Legend", the
-8 EOC 3      -10-</p>
+8 EOC 3    -10-</p>
 
 <p>disclosure of important information may itself be a bigger part of the real
 story than the casual reader (of "Time," and even of this book) would think.
@@ -1936,8 +1936,8 @@ Lines: 618</p>
 
 <p>-----BEGIN PART 4/4-----------------------------------------------------------</p>
 
-<p>ECHOES OF CONSPIRACY      December 8, 1986
-Vol. 8, #4        Paul L. Hoch</p>
+<p>ECHOES OF CONSPIRACY    December 8, 1986
+Vol. 8, #4      Paul L. Hoch</p>
 
 <p><special>Showtime show trial:</special>
    Among EOC readers, access to Showtime cable TV seems scarcer than
@@ -1996,7 +1996,7 @@ an apparently working court reporter, and an audience of actors.
 Spence had not lost a jury trial in 17 years; at some level these guys were
 clearly playing for keeps.  This may have led to strategies aimed at winning,
 rather than at, say, coming up with newsworthy new evidence or good TV.
-8 EOC 4      -2-</p>
+8 EOC 4    -2-</p>
 
 <p>   Bugliosi began his opening statement with negative comments about
 conspiracy buffs.  A frameup is a "preposterous" idea; Oswald was a "deeply
@@ -2056,7 +2056,7 @@ floor either.
    Officer <special>Marrion Baker</special> described his encounter with Oswald on the second
 floor.  Spence emphasized that Oswald did not seem excited.
    <special>Ted Callaway</special> told of seeing Oswald run past his used-car lot with his
-8 EOC 4      -3-</p>
+8 EOC 4    -3-</p>
 
 <p>pistol, and of checking Tippit's pulse and calling in on his radio.  On cross,
 Bugliosi objected to Spence cutting off Callaway's responses, but was
@@ -2116,7 +2116,7 @@ of the head entry wound.  (7 HSCA 129)  Spence erroneously introduced this as
 a conflict between the photos and the X-rays, and the real issue here (which
 the HSCA was unable to resolve) was totally obfuscated.
    HSCA firearms expert <special>Monty Lutz</special> described a re-enactment he did for
-8 EOC 4      -4-</p>
+8 EOC 4    -4-</p>
 
 <p>Bugliosi this May, getting three hits in 3.6 seconds once, and two hits the
 other four times.  Spence noted that this was not an exact duplication.  He
@@ -2176,7 +2176,7 @@ list of questions which could be asked in a productive and non-hostile manner.
 I hope she doesn't think Spence is a typical critic; I think some of us should
 write to her and apologize.
    If Spence's whole case really were typical of what the critics have to
-8 EOC 4      -5-</p>
+8 EOC 4    -5-</p>
 
 <p>offer, it would be time to retire.  My reaction to Mark Lane in 1964 was that
 all those little points must add up to something; my reaction to Spence is
@@ -2236,7 +2236,7 @@ the technicians, but O'Connor insisted there was no brain to remove.  If this
 was so shocking, Bugliosi wondered, why didn't he tell the HSCA?  He seemed
 genuinely surprised when O'Connor said he had been "under orders not to talk
 until that time."
-8 EOC 4      -6-</p>
+8 EOC 4    -6-</p>
 
 <p>   Unfortunately, issues relating to these orders were not pursued on the
 air.  O'Connor, who was nervous, referred to getting permission from the HSCA
@@ -2296,7 +2296,7 @@ in the defense case was better than Spence's presentation of it.
    I am told that the taped testimony included three additional witnesses,
 and that three more were flown to London but not used.  (I do not know the
 names of those witnesses.)
-8 EOC 4      -7-</p>
+8 EOC 4    -7-</p>
 
 <p>   Bugliosi's closing arguments were effectively delivered and generally
 straightforward.  He did not push a "no conspiracy" argument, but alleged that
@@ -2356,7 +2356,7 @@ is CIA disinformation.  He praised the Warren Commission for doing a
 involvement.  The issue, he thinks, is how we can keep our idealism without
 succumbing to "irrationality and to violence."
    Dershowitz emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the
-8 EOC 4      -8-</p>
+8 EOC 4    -8-</p>
 
 <p>fact-finding process.  Even more than Spence, he would have emphasized that
 the process had been tampered with.  Clark said that sort of thing happens all
@@ -2416,7 +2416,7 @@ the time is devoted to rehashing old arguments...."
    121.  16 Nov  (Schneider, NYT)  "Bringing Lee Harvey Oswald to 'Trial'"
 The "main weakness", Bugliosi said, was the time limitation on cross-
 examination and closing statements.
-8 EOC 4      -9-</p>
+8 EOC 4    -9-</p>
 
 <p>   122.  19 Nov  (AP)  "Kennedy case put to a jury"  [2 pp.]  Researcher
 Tomlinson said the program "produces no new evidence" and is not "the final
@@ -2476,7 +2476,7 @@ that was found in the limousine?
    VG:  No, this was only an analysis of bullet lead.
    GS:  I'm gonna ask you once more, Dr. Guinn, did you analyze the large
 copper fragment that was found in the limousine?  [VG:  No.]
-8 EOC 4      -10-</p>
+8 EOC 4    -10-</p>
 
 <p>   GS:  Are you aware of the fact, doctor, that dishonest evidence can be
 honestly examined?  [VG:  Of course.]